Question

question 3 (1 point)
when a plaintiff sues a police agency for negligence:
the \duty\ element can be satisfied by the plaintiff by proving \actual causation\
the \duty\ element can be satisfied by the plaintiff by proving \proximate causation\
the \duty\ element cannot be satisfied by the plaintiff by proving a \public duty\ owed by the police to the general public
all the above are true statements
none of the above are true statements

Explanation:

In negligence claims against police agencies, the "duty" element requires showing a specific duty owed to the plaintiff, not just a general public duty. Actual causation and proximate causation are separate elements of negligence (not used to prove duty). The third option correctly states that proving a public duty to the general public does not satisfy the duty element for the individual plaintiff.

Answer:

The "duty" element cannot be satisfied by the plaintiff by proving a "public duty" owed by the police to the general public